The URL can be used to link to this page

01/07/2008 CONF MTG - 6149� � CITY OF FRIDLEY STATE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING January 7, �008 - 6:0o p.m. Fridley Municipal Center Meeting Room � �Lower Level) Northstar Corridor 2. Local Government Aid. 3. Administrative Penalties. 4. Springbrook Nature Center Project. 5. Other Business. City of Fridley Northstar Stat�on Legi:slative Sumrnary 2008 Background: The Fridley Station Site includes property on both the East and West sides of the BNSF tracks. The site on the West side of the tracks was used as an informal dump for construction debris and has some minor contamination issues. Other barriers to redevelopment include a number of blighted apartment buildings and a mixture of industrial and commercial land requiring expensive relocation, remediation and soils corrections. The biggest obstacles to redeveloping the rail site are the high costs of acquisition and construction. Following is the cost breakdown for construction of the Fridley Station: Land acquisition: $ 3.3 — 8.OM Platform: 2.OM Vertical Integration (elevators and stairs) 1.OM Parking, landscaping, lighting 1.5M Enqineering and technical, etc.: .2.2M TOTAL: $10.0 — 14.7M PU%�IC PUij�OS@: Fridley residents and folks from our neighboring communities will be able to take the train to work in Minneapolis, take in a Twins game, and transfer to light rail to get to the airport and Mall of America. The rail will eventually allow Fridley residents to access St. Cloud State for higher education.. The station is very important to Fridley's current and future employers. Large employers (Medtronic, BAE Systems, Onan, Target) welcome this station site in Fridley because it will provide another option for their employees to get to work. Commuter rail service will allow these companies to attract and retain their workers. It is also important to the region and state. The success of the Northstar line is dependent upon usage. A stop in the City of Fridley would enhance ridership and thus safeguard this significant state and federal investment. It would also help to relieve congestion and promote improved environmental quality by providing commuter options. The center design of the Fridley Station, and its tunnel, will also provide a safe crossway for pedestrians even if they aren't taking the train Extraordinary Costs: The Northstar Commuter Rail Development Authority (NCDA) submitted their funding grant application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and that application did not include funding for a Fridley station. The Fridley Station was dropped after negotiations between the NCDA and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNSF) resulted in much higher easement costs than expected. BNSF dictated the need for a passenger platform in the middle of the tracks. Because of this requirement, a tunnel will be needed to get passengers safely to the station. The result was a station design that was more expensive than the more typical design. This made the Fridley Station an easy target for elimination in the face of higher than expected costs for Northstar overall. The City's HRA and the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority (ACRRA) have undertaken a number of steps together to ensure that Fridley is not left out of the first round of construction and is online with the rest of the system in the fall of 2009. During the fall of 2007, ACRRA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City's HRA. In the agreement, ACRRA committed to initially funding the $1.6 M tunnel installation and the City's HRA agreed to take the lead role in acquisition of the property needed for the rail station. Both parties agreed to pursue funding to reimburse these costs from the Met Council and State of Minnesota. There are no City funds available for any of the Northstar station components. This leaves only the City's HRA Funds, which are limited. The City and its HRA are willing to use some HRA funds to move the project forward by making the initial acquisition. The tax increment piece of the City's proposal would go a long ways toward addressing the funding gap, leveraging other sources of funds for the project, and potentially allow the HRA to recover iYs investment in this project of regional significance. Proposed Legislation: The proposed legislation, approved by both the House and Senate in 2007, would allow the City to establish a geographically defined redevelopment district that encompasses three existing pre-1979 redevelopment districts. Revenues generated in three of the existing districts could contribute up to $2.5M in current and future venues to be used throughout the new district boundaries to develop the Northstar Transit Station and the surrounding area. This will require some amendments to current law: (1) the definition of eligible costs is expanded to include costs necessary for the development of or expanded use of a transit station; (2).pooling flexibility is provided; (3) the five year rule does not apply; and (4) the need to use revenues from three aforementioned existing districts for decertification is eliminated. Staff is hopeful that this legislation can be included in any override of the Governor's veto of the Transportation Bill that may happen in the opening days of the upcoming legislative session. If this is not possible, staff will again ask for the generous assistance of our local delegation in moving this legislation forward in the new session. Northstar Transit Station to be Located on Parcels #19-24 and #36-38 �..��/ ��dF: ¢ � � i ��'' 1�'� � . � �� 1� I+��r d� �''r��t�� "r�rl�l�'. �IF �1��1!�� L� .�� : _ r ��u .� �, , �s��.a�� , -, f � - €w � h; �1'L °a+T$t J �d i _4.... n .� ,°� � � � f.... _.. �...... ... �''�"�'� a�{- ra . ;�� -�' �r �'' .� �, �. �_.� � � �� ,.. : ; ..... w .... ._.� ' ; � > ; � � � �-� � � �S ;' . ,� �: ;. � . � � _ � .�:: � � �° � �S,F CC. C: E�� 1x"{°. . .. $ .,......�e , . .s '. �.f'� � .... .... �� .... i ... '.� �°"f�- ��Y � ::��.: . . _ ....�._ � ..:s � ��, ... �� . .. ��. ^F�� _. I�� .�..:1°z...'ab. .� '��. � � � � � d.�'x� � � .� rtr�i. .... �::;. ., ...._ .. ts,"+�zsiak� ... rh £ �" � .,� .,. . _.... � �� ,�,„�� I �:.._.,..,........ > .. . .. � a� � �Y'��al '��i ��"J �.ij��r ��J�S3 ��{�� Ji�i``� � �� > ��„� .. . .. . ... ... ' ..,.... .,, _ .. �,� ,�. s �� Memo to: The Mayor and Council From: William W. Burns, City Manager Subject: Local Government Aid Date: 1-3-08 I prepared the following comments in preparation for our meeting with the Fridley legislative delegation on Monday night. The current LGA formula theoreticaliy is based on need and ability to pay. Those who drafted it began by assuming that a city's need is equivalent to its year 2000 levy together with the LGA that it rcceived in 2000. Having made that assumption, they cast about to find demographic and other variables t6at show�l some statistical correlation with need. They found five variables that together egplained about two thirds of the variation iw need (as they had defined it). They then used the correlation coefficients for these variables to determine the LGA certificatians each year. To the eatent that individual cities demonstrate changes in the presence of these variables from year to year, they either get more or less LGA. The five varia6les include the fotlowing: 1. % of pre 1940 housing 2, population decline over the last decade (most recent decade for which statistics are available}. 3. accidents per capita as reparted by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety 4. average household size as estimated by the state demographer. 5. metro or non-metro status (cities located outside t6e seven county metro receive a S35 per capita LGA bonus) On the ability to pay side of t6e formula they calculate each city's adjusted net tag capacity (ANTC) and multiply the number by the average taa rate for alt cities. The product is t6en compared with need as defined by the five-factor formula. If need eaceeds ability to pay, the city is given a proportionate amount of LGA. W6ile there are problems wit6 the ability to pay side of the formula (it doe4 not consider dit%rences in personal income levels in any of the cities), t6e most serious problems lie wit6 the needs side of t6e formula. The biggest of these probtems is with t6e original met6od used to measure municipal need. R.at6er than ase eapenditures as a measure of need the authors of the formula used levy together with LGA for t6e year 2000. The problem with that is that the LGA amounts that were distributed in 20t10 included a lot of grand fathered aid and city-specific aid increases that had previously i�n granted to Greater Minnesota Cities having a population above 10,(l00. In other words t6e needs definition was rigged from the outset to favor those who were already getting disproportionate amounts of LGA. At the same time, the authors purported to be eliminating grandfathering. The new formula that was adopted in 2Q03 distributes 66°/. of t6e total LGA allocation to Greater Minnesota Cities, 25°� of the aid to Minneapolis and S� Paul, and less th�n 5% of the aid to the metropolitan suburbs. If it were distributed oa a per capita basis, eac6 of these groups would receive about a third of the aid. Instead, Greater Minnesota Cities get $210 per capita; the core cities get $213 per capita, and the subarbs get less than $il per capita. Although all Minnesota residents contribute the income and sales tazes used to fund LGA, many suburbs get no LGA at all. As LGA was substantially withdrawn from the suburbs after 2003, local property tazes rose. In Fridley's case, property taaes climbed from $5.2 miltion in 2003 to $9.5 milfion in 2008. During the same time span property tages rose from about 35% of Fridley's General Fund revenue to over 60% of its General Fund revenue. While redefining LGA is a di�cult t�sk, I think there is a solution that is fairly simple. This solution is based on a revenue sharing approach. Under this approach one assumes that the state should monopolize the sales and income tag instruments. Giving cities these tools creates additional eacpense for coUection and drives intergovernmental competition for taz resources. Therefore, it makes sense ta assume that the state should redistribate or share some of its income and sales taz revenue in order to offset municipal dependence on property tazes (the most regressive form of tazation). Since everybody in Mianesota pays the sales and income tazes their redistribution to cities should entitle every city to some partion of the distribution, subject to fairly determined standards of need and ability to pay. The formula used to distribute t6ese funds shoWd be simple, transparent, and should $pply evenly to all cities. Siace t6e process of changing t6e eaisting formula is potentially zero- sum g�me where there are wianers and losers, changes ought to be introduced incrementally. It is also appropriate to consider hoiding all cities harmless from steep drops in current levets of aid. In order to implement this �ppro�ch, I would begin by replacing the current needs portion of the formula with a new needs formula that is based on eapenditures. T6is should be done in 2008. In subsequent years, I would �lso examine the ability to pay portion of t6e formuta. Additionalty, I would also consider ihe consistency af the LGA program distribution with ot6er state distribution programs, such as the Fisc.�l Disparities program and the Market Value Homestead Credit program in subsequent years. In order to implement the redefinition of the needs side of the formula, I have asked Pat Dalton at House Researc6 to telt me how LGA might be redistributed under the following assumptions: 1. Use the State Auditor's reports to identify each city's average ea�penditures for 2Q03, 2004, and 2005 (2006 ezpenditures were not yet available at the time). 2. I also asked her to lump all cities together. 3. Additionally, I asked her to �ssume that the "ability to pay" side of the formula would remain the same. 4. I also asked her to assume that for 2QQ9, no city wauld get less than 90% of the amoant certified to it for 2008. 5. Finally, I asked her to identify the additional cost to the state for doing all of the above. According to Pat Dalton, the new formula that I proposed would cost Minnesota $112 million to implement in 2008. That would bring funding for LGA back to 20031evels. The formula would also generate new revenue for many metropolitan suburbs. I've listed a sampling of the distribution results in the attached table. At the present time, I have been shopping this proposal among a number of people including Gary Carlson at the League of Minnesota Cities, Louie Jambois at Metrn Cities, and Eric Willette at the Minnesota Department of Revenue. While he has not been supportive of my efforts in the past, I've also asked Mark Bernhardson, City Manager of Bloomington to take a look at it. Once I get feedback from these people, I may have Pat Dalton do additional runs. Ultimately, I propose to ask our legislative delegation to draft legislation that s�pports a major change in the needs portion of the LGA formula. Additionally, once we have a proposal, it would be very appropriate for the Mayor and Council to seek meetings with your counterparts in other subarban communities as well as key legislators who are on the Tag Committees in both the House and the Senate. Our legistative delegation could be very helpful in arranging these meetings. That's my story. Hopefully you concur with this approach. I look forward to discussing it with you and the legislative delegation on Monday nigh� LGA Formula Table pA \ i • � �\\ �� . � y � �y� �� . �\ � c � g .. : � � ��i \ : `��i , � : �� . �a /'��;� � �\ �� '� ..�,�'* a�\'\ �. �. :� �,�";!l�!"�„ '.��7 �� \:: ,i� Minnea olis $117,571,329 $82,230,891 $88,084,255 387,970 St. Paul 76,129,865 56,781,644 51,103,480 286,620 Bloomin ton 295,805 0 7,530,262 85,832 Burnsville 642,509 0 2,722,758 61,048 Ea an 126,794 0 517,615 66,508 Apple Valle 413,540 0 2,129,066 48,832 Maple Grove 179,785 0 6,010,268 58,491 PI mouth 74,579 0 867,389 70,676 Minnetonka 149,032 0 334,478 51,519 Brookl n Park 2,794,710 0 5,696,703 71,942 Robbinsdale 2,124,684 1,235,352 1,140,698 13,698 Columbia Hei hts 2,651,999 1,260,148 1,426,076 18,288 Fridle 2,045,663 722,306 1,788,038 26,603 Coon Rapids 2,998,456 450,000 2,822,959 63,649 Anoka 1,845,568 947,030 1,501,814 18,076 Andover 119,842 0 2,701,079 30,207 Blaine 1,168,776 0 1,757,903 54,927 Sprin Lake Park 232,337 0 549,053 � 6,623 New Bri hton 748,231 0 2,930,574 22,325 Roseville 84,882 0 1,062,645 33,969 Mounds View 879,570 121,371 677,000 12,680 White Bear Lake 876,258 1,342,081 1,207,873 24,723 Stillwater 1,402,487 455,942 2,025,871 17,929 Cambrid e 637,130 603,742 1,547,415 7,382 Eden Valle 220,554 212,298 191,068 889 Elk River 937,272 686,820 2,263,673 22,550 St. Cloud 12,899,693 11,710,745 11,304,648 64,711 Duluth 30,402,254 29,061,709 26,155,538 85,170 Blackduck 177,474 189,084 170,176 720 Lon ville 6,664 1,092 84,642 182 Alexandria 1,791,628 1,341,156 1,207,040 11,323 Lanesboro 262,686 201,444 181,300 757 Albert Lea 6,404,930 5,331,666 4,798,499 18,184 Willmar 4,544,634 4,374,578 3,937,120 18,948 Fairmont 3,746,947 4,009,327 3,608,394 10,720 Rochester 11,139,855 7,620,306 12,840,657 98,649 Mankato 9,560,719 7,294,878 6,565,390 35,493 Clo uet 3,537,033 2,246,014 2,021,413 11,714 , Administrative Fines January 4, 2008 Page 2 sets the penalty for these minor offenses as petty misdemeanors that carry a maximum penalty of $300. The exact amount is dependant on the uniform fine schedule adopted by each district court. Administrative fines within the $300 petty misdemeanor limit conform to the requirements of Statute. Home rule charter cities such as Fridley have the inherent authority to impose administrative fines for local ordinance violations for which there is no statutory counterpart. The City of Fridley believes that use of administrative fines for local ordinance violations involving minor traffic offenses is authorized as well, but recognizes that the practice is not without controversy. The City of Fridley urges local legislators to clarify the issue and lay to rest any concerns by supporting and or sponsoring legislation specifically authorizing local authorities to issue administrative fines for local ordinance violations involving minor traffic offenses. � Parks and Recreation Department emo �(�� To: William W. Burns, City Manager �i' From: Jack Kirk, Director of Parks and Recreation� Date: January 2, 2008 Re: State Bonding Bill Request for SNC Project The City of Fridley has filed a Capital Budget Request with the State of Minnesota to be considered for funding in the 2008 Bonding Bill for the Springbrook Nature Center SPRING project. The request is for $2.815 Million, which would cover 50% of the project. The balance of the funding for this project would need to be raised locally through a fund raising campaign headed by the SNC Foundation. If time allows, this project may be something the City Council and our legislative delegation may want to discuss next Monday. Attached is some key information on the project and some recent developments. s - t Springbrook Nature Center 2008 State Bonding Bill Request for $2.815 Million • On June 20, 2007, the City of Fridley filed a"Capital Budget Request for 2008" with the State of Minnesota for $2,815,000. This is a request to be included in the 2008 "Bonding Bill." • This request was made to fund the SPRING project for Springbrook Nature Center (SPRING = Sanctuary Protection and Renewal Into the Next Generation) • The total project cost in the application made to the State of Minnesota is $5,630,000. This reflects an increase of 12.6% from the original $5,000,000 requested in 2006. The increase follows guidelines set by the State. • The project application states that the balance of the funds required for the project will be raised locally. The Springbrook Nature Center Foundation has committed to accomplishing this task. • Springbrook Foundation representatives have discussed with several legislators the possibility of the legislature approving $3.1 million instead of $2.815 million, to cover the entire cost of inflation, reducing the fundraising burden locally. Foundation members indicate some support for this idea among the legislators. • A business plan has been developed that assures no additional operating cost for the city when this project is completed due to increased utility efficiency and increased revenue in the new spaces. • This project will add: l. 10,000 square feet of indoor space at the nature center (5,000 sq ft existing) for classrooms, larger exhibit space, an indoor amphitheatre, large gathering space for rentals and programs, an indoor gift shop and cafe, and up to date rest rooms. 2. Heating and cooling using geothermal heat pumps, as well as solar panels and many other "green" technology uses for efficiency and exhibits 3. Outdoor amphitheatre seating 300 4. Enclosed picnic shelter for programs, rentals, weddings, etc. 5. Increased parking with permeable surface parking lot reducing runoff 6. A memorial/celebration plaza 7. Outdoor classrooms/peace gardens/event spaces 8. Landscaping and child "natural" play areas